get_decision

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical trait: 'never its content', indicating the tool excludes substantive content and only returns formal metadata (enums, timestamps, hash). It also mentions lineage and scope, which adds context beyond the schema. However, it does not discuss error behavior or permission requirements beyond the auth_token parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It avoids redundant phrasing, precisely states the return scope, and includes a critical negative constraint ('never its content') without unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains what is returned: declared fields, scope, lineage, and formal shape. Without an output schema, it provides a clear high-level view of the return structure. It could mention error cases (e.g., not found) but this is not critical for basic usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the two parameters (dd_id and auth_token), each with a clear description. The tool description adds no new meaning about parameter usage or syntax; it only implies dd_id via 'by its ID'. Since schema coverage is high, the description's lack of additional parameter detail is acceptable, and the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a specific decision record by its ID, with an explicit verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('decision record'). It further specifies what is returned (declared info, scope, lineage) and distinguishes itself by emphasizing it returns only the formal shape, never content, which separates it from siblings like get_decision_metadata_distribution or list_decisions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The context is clear: use this when you need a single decision's formal structure by ID. The 'never its content' clause implies a limitation but does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'use get_decision_metadata_distribution for aggregates'). Thus it provides clear context without explicit exclusions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.